Surgical experience and identification of errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Author:

Humm Gemma L12,Peckham-Cooper Adam3ORCID,Chang Jessica4,Fernandes Roland5,Gomez Naim Fakih2,Mohan Helen67,Nally Deirdre8,Thaventhiran Anthony J9ORCID,Zakeri Roxanna2,Gupte Anaya10,Crosbie James2,Wood Christopher2,Dawas Khaled2,Stoyanov Danail1ORCID,Lovat Laurence B12

Affiliation:

1. Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London , London , UK

2. UCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London , London , UK

3. Leeds Institute of Emergency General Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust , Leeds , UK

4. Department of General Surgery, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital , Shrewsbury , UK

5. Department of General Surgery, East Kent Hospitals University Foundation Trust, William Harvey Hospital , Ashford , UK

6. Department of Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre , Melbourne, Victoria , Australia

7. Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria , Australia

8. Department of General Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital , Dublin , Ireland

9. Department of General Surgery, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS , London , UK

10. Department of General Surgery, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, University College Hospital , London , UK

Abstract

Abstract Background Surgical errors are acts or omissions resulting in negative consequences and/or increased operating time. This study describes surgeon-reported errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods Intraoperative videos were uploaded and annotated on Touch SurgeryTM Enterprise. Participants evaluated videos for severity using a 10-point intraoperative cholecystitis grading score, and errors using Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment, which includes skill, consequence, and mechanism classifications. Results Nine videos were assessed by 8 participants (3 junior (specialist trainee (ST) 3–5), 2 senior trainees (ST6–8), and 3 consultants). Participants identified 550 errors. Positive relationships were seen between total operating time and error count (r2 = 0.284, P < 0.001), intraoperative grade score and error count (r2 = 0.578, P = 0.001), and intraoperative grade score and total operating time (r2 = 0.157, P < 0.001). Error counts differed significantly across intraoperative phases (H(6) = 47.06, P < 0.001), most frequently at dissection of the hepatocystic triangle (total 282; median 33.5 (i.q.r. 23.5–47.8, range 15–63)), ligation/division of cystic structures (total 124; median 13.5 (i.q.r. 12–19.3, range 10–26)), and gallbladder dissection (total 117; median 14.5 (i.q.r. 10.3–18.8, range 6–26)). There were no significant differences in error counts between juniors, seniors, and consultants (H(2) = 0.03, P = 0.987). Errors were classified differently. For dissection of the hepatocystic triangle, thermal injuries (50 in total) were frequently classified as executional, consequential errors; trainees classified thermal injuries as step done with excessive force, speed, depth, distance, time or rotation (29 out of 50), whereas consultants classified them as incorrect orientation (6 out of 50). For ligation/division of cystic structures, inappropriate clipping (60 errors in total), procedural errors were reported by junior trainees (6 out of 60), but not consultants. For gallbladder dissection, inappropriate dissection (20 errors in total) was reported in incorrect planes by consultants and seniors (6 out of 20), but not by juniors. Poor economy of movement (11 errors in total) was reported more by consultants (8 out of 11) than trainees (3 out of 11). Conclusion This study suggests that surgical experience influences error interpretation, but the benefits for surgical training are currently unclear.

Funder

Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Royal Academy of Engineering Chair in Emerging Technologies

Medtronic

Digital Surgery

National Institute for Health Research University College London

Biomedical Research Centre

Cancer Research UK

RCSI PROGRESS

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Surgery

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3